Skip to main content

The Cognitive Gap Of Why

So a non-trivial number of people whom I respect and enjoy have made the very same mistake about a bunch of inter-related application usage patterns specifically about social media tools and the infrastructures therein.

That's a complicated starting sentence, so let me give a specific example (which is just the latest in a long line of argumentation all of a theme): the excellent CGP Grey made an argument about Youtube and why it can't be better at serving up videos and be more like Netflix when presenting content. It's an excellent point, to be fair: Youtube is fantastically bad at serving up content that I want in the way that I want it when I'm trying to watch stuff, and I'm not even a publisher; CGP Grey's problems are at least twice the difficulty level from mine.

The problem is, of course, that the problem reverts to a very old axiom that I've used since I heard it the first time: nearly every question that starts with "why" can be answered with "money".

Netflix and Youtube have two fundamentally different business models. For Netflix, their customers and their users are the same people: the audience for Netflix is the people that gave them money, and so they are motivated to deliver a good user experience because not doing so will cost them money. Their Ops focus is stability, reliability, deliverability, and service. Their UX focus is about getting photons into eyeballs as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Their goal as a company is to satisfy the viewer.

For Youtube, though, the users and the customers are two entirely different groups. Youtube doesn't make any money from the person who comes to look at the videos they host; in point of fact, they arguably cost money for Youtube. In fact, content-uploaders aren't the customers, either, which is hilarious because Youtube wouldn't exist without the people who upload stuff. No, the customers for Youtube are the advertisers and aggregators that want the data about the users. That's what Youtube is selling, even over and above the ads on top of the content itself; they're selling data about what users are watching.

The same is true of social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus. The people who use those sites are not the people that the sites care about, at the end of the day. It's why Facebook won't set their algorithms to display status updates in explicit chronological order. It's why Twitter is changing the methodology of the timeline. It's why Google Plus doesn't disable plus-one sharing, even though nearly everyone who uses G+ hates it. The people that use the sites are not the audience. They're not the customers. The customers are the people who pay Facebook, Twitter, and Google for data about the users.

If a service isn't charging you for using it, then you are the service model.

The answer to nearly every "why" is almost always "money".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Occasional Media Consumption: Gideon the Ninth, by Tamsyn Muir

There is -- I won't say no trick, but perhaps -- very little trick to introducing the reader to a character and then making us like that character. An author can make it a bit harder for themselves by making the character somewhat disagreeable, at least at the start, but eventually we get to the bits where the character does something good and then we like them. An author can do this in reverse, too: show the reader a character, and them make us not like that character. Arguably, it's slightly easier, because we just see the character being an asshole, and then we don't like them. But there is a positive magic in the trick of taking a character, and making us not like them, and then changing our minds. It's a hell of a trick, too. We're introduced to a character, and then the do something disagreeable or assholish, and then we don't like the character. And then, little by little, the author peels back the layers, and suddenly we understand. The character was li…

Occasional Media Consumption: Middlegame, by Seanan McGuire

The most amazing thing to me, in a book filled with amazing things, is that McGuire never addresses the title choice of the book, and yet it was perfectly, brilliantly obvious from about a third of the way in. No, I won't spoil it; I'm not an asshole. But it is amazing, and exactly appropriate for the story being told. There are a LOT of things being juggled in this book. Pairs of characters. Solo characters. Histories. Magic. The modern world. Alchemy. The hidden corners everywhere in the world, and some of the people who live there. And the places that exist in the social unconscious, that are there but not there any longer.

It's hard to talk about this book without spoiling it, because many of the choices the author makes are so outside the norm of the genre that to give them away is to take away from the ingeniousness of the move itself. But in the same way, I've also read several books that leverage exactly the same tropes and choices in similar ways, to great and…

"My pain was selfish. Because it was never only mine."

Y'all, I am so, so tired.

I mean that in a couple of ways, of course. It's been hot in the Pacific Northwest over the last week or so, and it's continuing to be hot for the next couple of weeks. Not that this is particularly surprising, because the world is literally on fire (THE ARCTIC IS BURNING, Y'ALL, AND THAT'S NOT A METAPHOR), but one of the nicer things about the PNW before the current decade was that mostly, it was temperate; summers were a highs-in-the-mid-80s kind of summer. This new highs-in-the-mid-90s is making it hard for me to get to, and stay, asleep overnight. And because harsh summers are a new thing here, almost none of the houses (including ours) have a central A/C unit, so we're trying to make do with window units. Which generate white noise, which is nice, but are also loud, which is not so nice. So I'm tired.

But this last week especially has been more than the physical tired. I'm emotionally tired. Drained, existentially tired. T…